_:

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

:. ....

~. :~.~'

(1'.

1i;
1

t':01~1; ,:j(F!1:1l~"'

'j.

rril.l"~I': I
:th

I:,~'~,~\
p:',ij::i
~ ~il ~I~-~ I !) ~ __
.... -.UJ.J-V
I \.

\( \ j;'L SEP 0 2 2016

~ \\l

:'-~'-~~85:Wr-i'1-rll~
,,.:__
!iii~:

__

__]&:--

BARANGAY
ANTIPOLO CITY,

l\epublit of titlbilippine~
thupreme QCourt
;ffianila

V.L~

Divisio#Jerk of Court
Third Diviseon

(;'

0 2 2015

THIRD DIVISION
MAYAMOT,

G.R. No. 187349

Petitioner,
Present:
-versus-

ANTIPOLO
CITY,
SANGGUNJANG
PANGLUNGSOD OF ANTIPOLO,
BARANGAYS
STA.
CRUZ,
BAGONG
NA YON
and
MAMBUGAN,
and
CITY
ASSESSOR and TREASURER,
Respondents.

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,

PERALTA,
PEREZ,
REYES, and
JARDELEZA, JJ.
Promulgated:
August 17, 2016

x _____________________________ - - - - - - - - ~F ~:~ x

DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision2 dated
January 30, 2009, which affirmed the Decision3 dated August 1, 2006 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City in Civil Case No. 995478 for Declaration of Nullity and/or Annulment of Resolution No. 97-89
and Injunction, and Court of Appeals' Resolution 4 dated March 31, 2009
denying the Motion for Reconsideration 5 filed on February 17, 2009.

The Facts
In 1984, Batas Pambansa
creating eight (8) new barangays
law creating the new barangay
comprising it, its boundaries, and

Bilang (BP Blg.) 787 to 794 were passed

in the then Municipality of Antipolo. Each
contained provisions regarding the sitios
mechanism for ratification of the law. 6

Rollo, pp. 19-36.

CA-G.R. CV No. 87854, penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., and concurred in by
Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., of the Eleventh Division, id. at 39-48.
Records, pp. 287-289.
Rollo, pp. 37-38.
CA rolla, pp. 7
Rollo, p. 40.

\...

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

With the addition of Barangays Beverly Hills, Dalig, Bagong Nayon,

San Juan, Sta. Cruz, Munting Dilaw, San Luis, and _Inarawan to the original
eight (8) (Calawis, Cupang, Mambugan, Dela Paz, San Jose, San Roque, San
Isidro, and Mayamot), Antipolo became composed of sixteen (16)
barangays. 7
'
In order to integrate the territorial jurisdiction of the sixteen ( 16)
barangays into the map of Antipolo, the Sangguniang Bayan of Antipolo
passed Resolution No. 97-80, commissioning the City Assessor to plot and
delineate the territorial boundaries of the sixteen (16) barangays pursuant to
the Bureau of Lands Cadastral Survey No. 29-047 and the provisions of BP
Blg. 787 to794. 8
On October 25, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of Antipolo passed
Resolution No. 97-89, "Defining the Territorial Boundaries of the Eight (8)
Newly Created Barangays and the Eight (8) Former Existing Barangays of
the Municipality of Antipolo, Rizal." 9 Resolution No. 97-89 approved the
barangay boundaries specified and delineated in the plans/maps prepared by
the City Assessor. Resolution No. 97-89 partly reads:
WHEREAS, this body has unanimously agreed and
requested the Assessor's Office which is competent enough
in the determination of Barangay territorial boundaries in
accordance with existing survey plans and assessment
records;
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Lands Cadastral Survey
No. 29-047 has defined the boundaries of the eight (8)
formerly existing and has continued to exist
[barangays], namely: San Roque, San Jose, San Isidro,
Dela Paz, Calawis, Cupang, Mambugan and Mayamot;

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 2 of Batas

Pambansa Nos. 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793 and
794, the territorial boundaries of barangays: Beverly
Hills, Dalig, Bagong Nayon, San Juan, Sta. Cruz,
Munting Dilaw, San Luis and Inarawan respectively
has been clearly defined;
WHEREAS, to avoid administrative conflicts and
territorial encroachments among barangay governments, it
is just and proper to identify and delineate barangay
territorial boundaries in (accordance] with the
Cadastral Survey for Old Barangays and the laws
creating the new barangays as prepared and plotted by
the Assessor's Office;

Id.
Id.; Records, p. 8:). /
Rowed,, pp.

8-10

--'

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

WHEREAS, development projects envisioned by the

government [will] be adversely affected if boundary
disputes of barangays will not be resolved in due time;
WHEREAS, the Association of Barangay Captains
(ABC) has unanimously acknowledged and endorsed the
Scheme and means of [delineating] Barangay territorial
boundaries hereinabove presented;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 80 of Batas Pambansa
337 or the Local Government Code provides that:
"Boundary disputes between barangays within
the same Municipality shall be heard and decided
by the Sangguniang Bayan concerned for the
purpose of affording the parties an opportunity to
reach an amicable settlement. xxx";
AFTER DUE DELIBERATION and on motion made
by Councilor Josme M. Macabuhay seconded by majority
of the members present, it was ...
RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved to approve the
barangay boundaries specified and delineated in the
plans/maps prepared by the Assessor's Office, Antipolo,
Rizal based on Cadastral Survey No. 29-047 and Batas
Pambansa Nos. 787 to 794;
RESOLVED FINALLY, to furnish copies of this
resolution all Councilors and Barangay [Councils] of this
jurisdiction for their information and guidance. 10 (Emphasis
supplied.)

On September 21, 1999, Barangay Mayamot filed a Petition for

Declaration of Nullity and/or Annulment of Resolution No. 97-89 and
Injunction 11 against Antipolo City, Sangguniang Panglungsod of Antipolo,
Barangays Sta. Cruz, Bagong Nayon, Cupang, and Mambugan, the City
Assessor and the City Treasurer before the RTC of Antipolo City.
In its petition, Barangay Mayamot claimed that while BP Big. 787 to
794 did not require Barangay Mayamot to part with any of its territory, the
adoption of Resolution No. 97-89 reduced its territory to one-half of its
original area and was apportioned to Barangays Sta. Cruz, Bagong Nayon,
Cupang, and Mambugan. It also claimed that the City Assessor's preparation
of the plan and the Sangguniang Panglungsod 's adoption of Resolution No.
12
97-89 were not preceded by any consultation nor any public hearing.
Barangay Mayamot further alleged that Resolution No. 97-89 violated
Section 82 of BP Big. 337 or the Local Government Code of 1983, the law
10
11

"

Id. at 8-9.
Id. at 1-7.
/dat2-3.

n/

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

in force at the time, which provided that alteration, modification and

definition of barangay boundaries shall be by ordinance and confirmed by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose. 13

The RTC's Ruling

On August 1, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision
petition.

14

dismissing the

The RTC held that Resolution No. 97-89 was passed pursuant to the
Cadastral Survey Plan duly approved by the Bureau of Lands and BP Big.
787 to 794 and was not intended to alter the territorial boundary of Barangay
Mayamot. It concluded that as the case involves a boundary dispute, the
provisions of the Local Government Code of 1983 apply. The RTC
explained:
x x x [T]he Comi opines that Resolution No. 97-89 did
not intend to alter the territorial boundary of Barangay
Mayamot or any existing or newly created barangay at the
time of its passing. Said Resolution was in fact passed in
consequence of and pursuant to Batas Pambansa Nos. 787
to 794 creating the eight new barangays of then
Municipality of Anti polo. xx x
A perusal of the Minutes reveals that it was never the
intention of the Sangguniang Bayan of Antipolo to alter or
modify the territorial boundaries of Barangay Mayamot.
Under the presumption of regularity, it relied on the
Cadastral Survey Plan duly approved by the Bureau of
Lands as indeed correctly defining the existing territorial
boundary of Barangay Mayamot. Not intending to alter any
territorial boundary, Resolution No. 97-89 is not an
ordinance contemplated under Section 82 of Batas
Pambansa Big. 337 as required to hold a plebiscite.
Any issue of discrepancy resulting in the adoption of
Resolution [No.] 97-89 between the boundary defined in
the Cadastral Survey Plan and the actual physical boundary
itself of Barangay Mayamot is a boundary dispute which
should have been properly ventilated in accordance with
the remedies available under the Local Government Code
of 1983, the prevailing law at the time of the passing of the
. reso lution.
.
su b~ect
x x x I~

Barangay Mayamot filed its Notice of Appeal 16 on August 29, 2006.

13
14
15
16

Id. at 3-4.
Supra note 3.
Records, p.~
Id. at 290.~

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

Through its assailed Decision dated January 30, 2009, the Court of
Appeals denied Barangay Mayamot's appeal.
The Court of Appeals ruled that contrary to the contention of
Barangay Mayamot, there is no issue as to the manner of creation of the
eight (8) new barangays. The additional barangays were created by BP Blg.
787 to794 and were approved by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
held on February 5, 1986, as evidenced by Commission on Elections
Resolution No. 96-2551. 17 It agreed with the finding of the RTC that
Resolution No. 97-89 was passed only in consequence of BP Blg. 787 to 794
and did not alter the territorial boundary of Barangay Mayamot. 18 As such,
the case was merely a boundary dispute.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Sections 118-119 of Republic Act
No. 7160 (RA No. 7160) 19 or the Local Government Code of 1991, the
statute in force at the time of commencement of Barangay Mayamot' s
action, provide the mechanism for settlement of boundary disputes. Thus,
the RTC correctly dismissed the case because it has no original jurisdiction
to try and decide a barangay boundary dispute, to wit:
Notably, the LGC of 1991 grants an expanded role on
the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan in
resolving cases of barangay boundary disputes. Aside from
having the function of bringing the contending parties
together and intervening or assisting in the amicable
settlement of the case, the Sangguniang Panlungsod or
Sangguniang Bayan is now specifically vested with original
jurisdiction to actually hear and decide the dispute in
accordance with the procedures laid down in the law and its
implementing rules and regulations. The trial court loses its
power to try, at the first instance, cases of barangay
boundary disputes and only in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction can the RTC decide the case. 20

On February 17, 2009, Barangay Mayamot filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, 21 which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution22
dated March 31, 2009.
In this petition, Barangay Mayamot reiterates its contention that
because of Resolution No. 97-89, its territory was altered and drastically
reduced. Barangay Mayamot argues that the changes and alterations did not
have any legal basis and did not conform to its actual and existing territorial
17

1s
19

20
21

-02

Rollo, p. 45.
Id.
An Act Providing for A Local Government Code of 1991 (1991 ).
Rollo, p. 47.
Supra note 5.
Supra note 4.

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

jurisdiction. Since there was alteration of its territory, Resolution No. 97-89
violated Section 82 of the Local Government Code of 1983, which requires
an ordinance and a plebiscite to create, alter, or modify barangay
. 23
boun danes.
The respondents filed their Comment24 on September 24, 2009 and
claim that as the case is a boundary dispute, the R TC and Court of Appeals
were correct in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Our Ruling

The petition has no merit.

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the courts to hear,
try and decide cases. 25 The nature of an action and its subject matter, as well
as which court or agency of the government has jurisdiction over the same,
are determined by the material allegations of the complaint in relation to the
law involved and the character of the reliefs prayed for, whether or not the
complainant/plaintiff is entitled to any or all of such reliefs. 26 The
designation or caption is not controlling more than the allegations in the
complaint. It is not even an indispensable part of the complaint. 27 Also,
jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the
statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines
the jurisdiction of the court. 28
In this case, it is of no moment that Barangay Mayamot's petition
before the RTC was captioned as one for nullity of Resolution No. 97-89. To
recall, Barangay Mayamot claimed that as a result of the consolidation and
integration of the boundaries of the old barangays and newly-created
barangays and issuance of Resolution No. 97-89 approving the consolidation
and integration, a portion of its territory was apportioned to Barangays
Bagong Nayon, Sta. Cruz, Cupang, and Mambugan. 29 In other words, the
allegations and issues raised by Barangay Mayamot are centered on the
alleged inconsistency between its perceived actual and physical territory and
its territory and boundaries, as defined and identified after the Bureau of
Lands Cadastral Survey No. 29-047 and the provisions of BP Big. 787 to
794 were consolidated and integrated by respondent City Assessor into the
map of Antipolo. Thus, contrary to Barangay Mayamot's argument that the
issue is the validity of Resolution No. 97-89, the issue to be resolved is the
23
24
25

26

27
28

29

Rollo, pp. 29-30, 33-34.

Id. at 69-73.
Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporatiun v. Bureau <~(Customs, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015,
759 SCRA 306, 312.
Del Valle, Jr. v. Dy, G.R. No. 170977, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 355, 364, citing Villamaria, Jr. v.
Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 165881, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 571, 589.
Munsaludv. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 167181, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 144, 157.
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hong, G.R. No. 161771, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 71, 77, citing
Llamas v. Court of A;p/G.R. No. 149588, September 29, 2009, 60 I SCRA 228, 233.
Reoo'd', pp. 2-3.

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

boundary dispute between Barangay Mayamot on the one hand, and

Barangays Bagong Nayon, Sta. Cruz, Cupang, and Mambugan, on the other
hand.
There is a boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of the
territorial area of a Local Government Unit (LGU) is claimed by two (2) or
more LGUs. 30 Here, Barangay Mayamot is claiming a portion of the territory
of Barangays Bagong Nayon, Sta. Cruz, Cupang and Mambugan.
Unfortunately for petitioner, the resolution of a boundary dispute is outside
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
At the time Barangay Mayamot filed its petition before the RTC of
Antipolo City, RA No. 7160 was already in effect. Sections 118 and 119 of
RA No. 7160 provide:
Section 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for
Settlement of Boundary Dispute. - Boundary disputes
between and among local government units shall, as much
as possible, be settled amicably. To this end:
(a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or
more barangays in the same city or municipality
shall
be
referred
for
settlement
to
panlungsod or sangguniang
the sangguniang
bayan concerned.
xxx
(e) In the event the sanggunian fails to effect an
amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from
the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall
issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the
be
formally
tried
by
dispute
shall
the sanggunian concerned which shall decide
the issue within sixty (60) days from the date of
the certification referred to above.
Section 119. Appeal. - Within the time and manner
prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party may elevate the
decision of the sanggunian concerned to the proper
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area in
dispute. The Regional Trial Court shall decide the appeal
within one (1) year from the filing thereof.xx x

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the RTC is without jurisdiction

to settle a boundary dispute involving barangays in the same city or
municipality. Said dispute shall be referred for settlement to the
sangguniang panglungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned. If there is
failure of amicable settlement, the dispute shall be formally tried by the
30

Rule III, Art. 15, Rules and Reg:tns ln1plementing the Local Government Code of 1991,
Administrative Order No. 270 ( 1992).' (

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

sanggunian concerned and shall decide the same within sixty (60) days from
the date of the certification referred to. Further, the decision of the
sanggunian may be appealed to the RTC having jurisdiction over the area in
dispute, within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.

As we have ruled in the cases of Municipality of Sta. Fe v.

Municipality of Aritao, 31 and Municipality of Pateros v. Court of Appeals,32
by virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991, the R TC lost its power to
try, at the first instance, cases of boundary disputes, and it is only when the
intermediary steps have failed that resort to the RTC will follow as provided
in the laws.
Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the R TC was correct in
dismissing the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, whenever it
appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action
shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during
appeal or even after final judgment. Such is understandable, as this kind of
jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the
parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside. 33
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this petition is DENIED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated January 30, 2009 and Resolution dated
March 31, 2009 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

J. VELASCO, JR.

31

32
33

G.R. No. 140474, September 21, 2007. 533 SCRA 586, 595-596.
G.R. No. 157714, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 130, 142-145.
Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 546, 559-560, citing Lozon v.
National labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 107660, January 2, 1995, 240 SCRA 1, 11.

Decision

G.R. No. 187349

M.PERALTA
ustice

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the abovyDecision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned t5/fhe writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

J. VELASCO, JR.
Ass/Yciate Justice
Chairp/rson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson's attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

~V~~tN

Divisicfn Clerk of Court

Third Division

StP n 2 201s